More ISS hardball - How does this affect US vision?

Commodore · 2005-02-01 21:28:32

And no, we do not need a new space station to get to the Moon. The development, construction, and launch of a space station as a Lunar way-station, would bankrupt the Lunar program.

What we should do is put together a nuclear powered reusable transit stage to take heavy surface modules to the Moon. Otherwise we'll do 3 times as many single shot launches to get to the surface.

In order to build it we're going to need a small construction station. Nothing fancy. Maybe just a single bigelow inflatable with a some scafolding and a couple Canada Arms to build and refuel them.

GCNRevenger · 2005-02-01 21:54:38

An NTR TLI stage would be nice, but they don't make any sense at this point.

First off is the safety issue of returning a hot reactor to low Earth orbit, most likly by aerobraking, which is the only economical way to return a reuseable ship without Lunar or asteroid made fuel.

Second is the boiloff problem, that storing fuel for the stage for more then a month or two, perhaps three tops, and you will have unacceptable losses. A fuel condenser is a heavy, complex, power hungry contraption that would take considerable development.

And most of all, its unnessesarry. You are only talking $50-100M per sortie saved. The fuel required for a Lunar trip to LLO using chemical fuel is roughly equal to your payload mass (for cryogenics), and an NTR stage would cut this in half. So, you only really reduce your mass by 1/4th considering heavier engines and bigger tanks, but you have to develop the engine and lug along its shielding and so on.

Even if we did go with the nuclear option, there is no reason to have a space station either. Payload and replacement fuel tanks could be docked Russian style. The additional cost would be much smaller then building and tending a space platform.

I must also insist that there is no such thing as a simple space station that could be used for a construction platform. No concieveable space station of any kind no matter how small would cost less then billions of dollars, a figure which would be fatal to VSE.

In the future, when we begin developing the Moon and we have a real "no really!" medium RLV, then a station makes sense... but not until then.

SpaceNut · 2005-02-02 07:01:10

Generator to fly sooner, NASA wants backup oxygen maker on station before crew expansion

NASA has moved up the launch of a new oxygen generator, which will fly to the International Space Station as soon as 2007.
Hamilton Sundstrand is developing the generator and plans to deliver it to NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center next month, so it can be integrated with its power supply.
It will be installed in the station's U.S. laboratory. Previously, it was to be housed in the yet-to-fly European-built Node 3.

Why so long to send it up after getting the unit at the end of 2005? Does it really take that long to add a power supply unit? Why does it not come with one?

SpaceNut · 2005-02-02 21:34:00

Gee can nothing go right on the ISS. ???

German Robot On ISS Does Not Work

A robot recently installed on the International Space Station does not respond to signals emitted from Earth-based controllers, local media reported Wednesday.
An undisclosed source at the Russian Mission Control Center was quoted by the ITAR-TASS news agency as saying the German robotic device, called Rokviss, has been able to send a signal to Earth, but it cannot pick up a reply. German and Russian specialists will switch on Rokviss several more times in the near future to test it, the source added.

GCNRevenger · 2005-02-03 08:36:53

http://www.floridatoday.com/!NEWSROOM/s … XYGEN.htm] Generator to fly sooner, NASA wants backup oxygen maker on station before crew expansion
NASA has moved up the launch of a new oxygen generator, which will fly to the International Space Station as soon as 2007.
Hamilton Sundstrand is developing the generator and plans to deliver it to NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center next month, so it can be integrated with its power supply.
It will be installed in the station's U.S. laboratory. Previously, it was to be housed in the yet-to-fly European-built Node 3.
Why so long to send it up after getting the unit at the end of 2005? Does it really take that long to add a power supply unit? Why does it not come with one?

One reason could be that the oxygen generator wasn't designed to use the US Lab's power supply as it was intended to fly on the European Node-3 module. It probobly needs some adaptors and modifocations.

Grypd · 2005-02-03 10:18:23

http://www.floridatoday.com/!NEWSROOM/s … XYGEN.htm] Generator to fly sooner, NASA wants backup oxygen maker on station before crew expansion
NASA has moved up the launch of a new oxygen generator, which will fly to the International Space Station as soon as 2007.
Hamilton Sundstrand is developing the generator and plans to deliver it to NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center next month, so it can be integrated with its power supply.
It will be installed in the station's U.S. laboratory. Previously, it was to be housed in the yet-to-fly European-built Node 3.
Why so long to send it up after getting the unit at the end of 2005? Does it really take that long to add a power supply unit? Why does it not come with one?
One reason could be that the oxygen generator wasn't designed to use the US Lab's power supply as it was intended to fly on the European Node-3 module. It probobly needs some adaptors and modifocations.

There is another example of the short sighted thinking that catergorises the building of the ISS. This oxygen generator was at first supposed to have been launched by the Ariane 5 and not the shuttle. It also was supposed to have its own power supply but all this was vetoed by NASA. Now the Node 3 remains sitting in a hanger as it is now impossible for it to be launched by the Ariane.

This beggars the question if this is international cooperation what happened then.

GCNRevenger · 2005-02-03 12:27:56

The biggest instance of "short sighted thinking" is the stupid notion that it was a good idea to mix major componets from three different space agencies.

International cooperation should be limited to:
-Interchangeable launch vehicles
-Things that only dock, no connections beyond the hatch
-Who pays for what... and then only with very careful agreement. No more of this Russian "we said we would but we can't" stuff.

SpaceNut · 2005-02-04 14:31:08

THE MOON IS NEARER FROM THE ISS

It sometimes seems that ambitions focusing on the Moon and Mars may eclipse all other problems involved in studying the universe, the International Space Station (ISS) being the main one. The fate of the station, which in the past two years has totally depended on Russia's efforts to keep it working, is a source of more concern for the Russians than for its ISS partners.
Today, every country involved in space exploration is interested in the Moon. India has announced ambitious plans to explore it from orbit. China has a developed lunar program and is soon to open a space center in Shanghai, where preparations for its first manned expedition will be made.

It would seem from the rest of the article that the russian's are banking on the shuttle flying again.

SpaceNut · 2005-02-07 12:45:49

This article list some of the hardware and experiments returning on the next soyuz.

[url=http://www.insidebayarea.com/dailyreview/localnews/ci_2558180] Danville astronaut packs items for return to Earth
Chiao and Russian prepare for Discovery's arrival at Space Station [/url]

Scientific research also high-lighted the week. Sharipov conducted three runs with the Russian Plasma-Crystal experiment, while Chiao worked with two student experiments. "Plazmennyi Kristall" studies how plasma-dust crystals and fluids behave in microgravity when excited by radio waves. Chiao installed the EarthKAM experiment on a bracket in one of the Station's windows. Students at 160 middle schools around the world have snapped more than 900 Earth observation images by remote control.
Chiao also worked with the Space Experiment Module-Satchel project, which contains 11 sample vials, one each from schools around the United States. The sample vials are exposed to microgravity for three to six months.

SpaceNut · 2005-02-11 07:09:01

Some more equipment failure for the aging ISS this time from the US side.
What else can break before a shuttle can bring what is needed to keep the station growing in size and to stabalize its construction.

US Orientation Engine Fails On ISS

GCNRevenger · 2005-02-11 11:51:12

The gyro isn't damaged, the ground controllers screwed up and sent the wrong commands to it... Either way, an excelent illustration of incompetance by the ISS operations staff, since if the problem could not have been promptly corrected, the ISS might have not been able to orient its solar pannels.

Manchu4 · 2005-02-11 12:10:14

It's difficult for me to understand how we are ever going to have a manned mission to Mars if we can't even get into LEO.

GCNRevenger · 2005-02-11 12:21:32

I think that it is safe to say that the ISS is a singular, unique, spectacular failure that we will get it right before we go anywhere without some abort-to-Earth options. Under the VSE plan, there is plenty of time for that.

Manchu4 · 2005-02-11 13:03:07

I hope that you are right. I watched the first moon landing when I was 12. It seemed that nothing was outside the grasp of those NASA pioneers and us as humans. Its seems though except for some spectacular successes in robotic exploration that NASA has gotten into a position of bailing out a sinking ship. I'm not confident that we will really abandon the shuttle in 2010. I also think a lot of resources that should go towards manned and unmanned exploration will be sucked up by the ISS. I can hear the politicians already. "We have spent so much money on the ISS, we can't let it fail now. " Excuse my pessimism, but NASA has not inspired me much lately.

Manchu4 · 2005-02-11 13:08:24

Course at the rate that we are losing shuttles, there probably won't be any left by 2010.

GCNRevenger · 2005-02-11 13:16:15

I think that NASA's chances of flying another twenty Shuttle flights at ~4 per year without disaster are pretty good, though not as high as they should be... NASA is taking a gamble.

The solution to the "but we need Shuttle for the ISS!" people come January 2011 can be answerd by building a cargo model of the CEV and putting it unmanned on top of a high-end Medium EELV.

Grypd · 2005-02-11 16:38:30

it took about 30 pounds of fuel from the Russian side to recover the ISS from its ride.

Interesting to note is this not the second time that we have had a missfire. Did not one happen while the astronauts where outside on an excursion. Was it not a possibility that we could have lost the crew then by there atmosphere being poisoned.

GCNRevenger · 2005-02-11 19:36:01

Yeah, Dinitrogen Tetraoxide or Dimethyl Hydrazine could concieveably stick to the astronauts' suits, in which case when they came inside then they would be at risk of contaminating the airlock with the particularly nasty stuff.

Grypd · 2005-02-12 14:48:54

Do you know when I was a child I used to look up to the stars and wonder.

I still do,

I wonder when the ISS is going to fall on me......

Frankly what made this operation go wrong, how could the USSR produce a station which was more effective than the ISS. And how could NASA design and insist on anything that relied on one means to get modules up. And how and why design and build something that prior to it being completed starts falling apart.

GCNRevenger · 2005-02-12 15:10:06

Well thats an easy one to answer... Because the ISS was never intended to be a worthwhile platform to do anything.

The ISS was really built to do three things:

1: Keep the Shuttle Army employed, with no destination, there was no reason to keep Shuttle around. To keep as many engineers employed and as much money coming in as possible for a project that is very long but could not be canceld easily.

2: Keep Russian rocket builders employed, and not going off to build missiles or spy satelites for hostile governments willing to pay handsomly for their services.

3: To present the illusion of progress, and try to make LEO the ultimate destination in the publics' mind, building things there instead of exploring or expanding where there are reasources.

And the ISS has succeeded spectacularly at the first, pretty well at the second, and dismally at the third purpose.

RobertDyck · 2005-02-12 23:30:41

You guys take it way too far. ISS falling on you? Get real. US Space Station Freedom would have cost $12.2 billion in 1988 not including the $3.4 billion dual keel structure and half of the power generators. However, every design effort had cost and mass overruns and congress repeatedly cut the budget. The result was unflyable.

The project was reduced and nicknamed "Space Station Fred", still cost $16.9 billion and dropped the advanced life support system to recycle oxygen and water. Scientists complained it had too little power and too slow data transmission, no centrifuge for life science research, and a crew of 4 just wasn't enough for serious science work. This reminds me, we need a full crew of 7 on ISS to do meaningful science.

ISS was decided upon so NASA could get Russia's recycling life support system, and get international partners to help pay for it. Europe, Canada and Japan always intended to be part of the International Station, and they always intended to pay for their part. It was a surprise to them that the first version of Freedom only included Canada. Bottom line is any space station wouldn't be up there today without Russia.

As for dependence on a single launcher, remember Russia depends on the Proton. They don't have Angara 5 yet, and intend to decommission Proton when Angara 5 is ready. When Skylab was launched it could only go on a Saturn V. It was originally designed for a Saturn IB, but that didn't have the Apollo telescope mount, multiple docking adapter, or even the airlock; just the workshop. Some in congress have currently proposed down-selecting EELV to a single launcher, Atlas V or Delta IV.

As for reliability: after Russia lost the Moon race they concentrated on space stations. They launched a total of 7 Salyut stations; some successful, others not. The last one, Salut 7, was a civilian station and quite successful. The Mir core module was an upgraded model of the Salyut 7 core module. The core module for Mir's replacement, Mir 2, was an exact copy. That module was flown as the Service module for ISS. The only problem with Mir was a spacecraft collided with it. I remember hearing criticism from American media pundits that Russia couldn't build a safe space station, but the reality is Russia did, America didn't. Skylab was the only American space habitat; since its oxygen, water, and fuel couldn't be replenished it was a "habitat" not a space station. The science reporter for CBC when Mir was having its problems commented that eventually ISS will get old so it would face similar problems. Learn from Mir's experience because America will have to face similar problems soon enough. Now that ISS is facing similar problems, you want to blame the Russians again!?

GCNRevenger · 2005-02-13 00:30:19

ISS was decided upon so NASA could get Russia's recycling life support system, and get international partners to help pay for it... Bottom line is any space station wouldn't be up there today without Russia.
As for reliability: after Russia lost the Moon race they concentrated on space stations.
The only problem with Mir was a spacecraft collided with it. I remember hearing criticism from American media pundits that Russia couldn't build a safe space station, but the reality is Russia did, America didn't. Learn from Mir's experience because America will have to face similar problems soon enough.
Now that ISS is facing similar problems, you want to blame the Russians again!?

No, not really. The US has its own life support system, it just wouldn't be launched with any of the early modules, so it would be a long time before the ISS could be in service. Having the Russian modules permitted early on habitation and a reduction in the equipment needed. Also gave the ISS docking ports for ships other then Shuttle and got the Russians to provide interim CRV assets until a perminant system were available.

And really, as far as doing anything other then keeping NASA and RSA employed, we would be vastly better off without any space station at all. So far we are on track to spend $100Bn on the project for a station with limited capabilities (vibration, science payloads) and completed lifespan.

If the dueling US gyros and Russian RCS systems, or simply the inertia from the Russian end of the station, really is causing nontrivial structural weakening... then yeah, the thing could fall out of the sky, or at least be renderd unsafe sooner then is projected. Or one of the myriad of other problems.

Russia lost the Moon race because their technology was inferior, that their rockets were too weak to place enough payload to safely carry out any Lunar surface mission and their landers lagged behind ours badly. We were better at building large rockets, cryogenic rockets, and advanced spacecraft then Russia.

"The only problem with Mir was a spacecraft collided with it."

And this, this is foolish Russia-worship nonsense. You are willfully forgetting the long list of dangerous problems that Mir had that can't be so dismissively blamed on the Progress collision. Russia's Mir was far from much of a useful safe space station, and the one big mistake that we should learn from it is not to try and prop up an ailing space station.

It was the Russians who left their RCS thrusters enabled during a spacewalk, the Russians' oxygen generator (which wastefully throws the H2 overboard, unrecycled) that keeps breaking, the big 400lbs Russian batteries that keep failing, and so on. So if your final exasperated question is that do I blame Russia at least in part of the ISS's condition, the answer is yes.

RobertDyck · 2005-02-13 07:21:06

No, not really. The US has its own life support system, it just wouldn't be launched with any of the early modules, so it would be a long time before the ISS could be in service. Having the Russian modules permitted early on habitation and a reduction in the equipment needed. Also gave the ISS docking ports for ships other then Shuttle and got the Russians to provide interim CRV assets until a perminant system were available.

Actually you are completely wrong. America didn't have any sort of recycling life support system. Before construction of ISS started, NASA insisted that Russia show an American contractor how it works. The excuse was an evaluation to ensure it's reliable. The system Hamilton Sundstrand built for the US Habitation module is an adaptation of it; new hardware but using the same principles. The reason NASA and its contractors can do it now is because the Russians showed them how. If NASA knew how to do it themselves, they could have built the US Habitation module early on instead of the Russian Service module.

And really, as far as doing anything other then keeping NASA and RSA employed, we would be vastly better off without any space station at all.

Aha! Simply criticizing the station because you don't like the idea of a station at all. Come on, presidents Bush Sr. and Clinton decided to proceed with it, and George W. had decided to continue to core complete. The money will be spent anyway. Yea, I would have like to go directly to Mars but let's not whine about a done deal. Instead, let's make the best use of the investment. Do the on-orbit science that scientists want, and demonstrate a high reliability LSS.

If the dueling US gyros and Russian RCS systems, or simply the inertia from the Russian end of the station, really is causing nontrivial structural weakening... then yeah, the thing could fall out of the sky, or at least be renderd unsafe sooner then is projected. Or one of the myriad of other problems.

The most extreme consequence of the problems you describe would be breaking the station, not de-orbit. Its thrusters would have to be off for years to de-orbit. "Falling out of the sky" is sensational hyperbole. I haven't heard about duelling US gyros and Russian RCS thrusters, but it takes two to fight. If you want to point fingers then I have to point out that the Russian segments were assembled first. From an engineering stand point, why are both systems on at once? I thought gyros were supposed to maintain attitude until spin saturated then RCS thrusters would maintain attitude while gyros are de-spun. Are the US gyros as currently installed sufficient to do the job alone, or does it require additional assembly?

Russia lost the Moon race because their technology was inferior, that their rockets were too weak to place enough payload to safely carry out any Lunar surface mission and their landers lagged behind ours badly. We were better at building large rockets, cryogenic rockets, and advanced spacecraft then Russia.

Russia was first with every space achievement until Apollo 8. That fly-by and the Moon landings were the only firsts by America. Was Saturn V better than N1? Yes. Was the Apollo CM/SM better than Soyuz? Not really. Bigger, but not better. America abandoned Apollo in 1972, but Russia has continued to make improvements to Soyuz so it is the best expendable spacecraft ever built. I found a US government web site that stated the cost of Soyuz-T/TM: 95 million Rubbles in 1992. Today's exchange rate is 28.075 Rubbles = 1 US Dollar, so that makes the spacecraft $3.38 million plus 13 years of inflation. Try to match the reliability, mass per astronaut, or price.

"The only problem with Mir was a spacecraft collided with it."
And this, this is foolish Russia-worship nonsense. You are willfully forgetting the long list of dangerous problems that Mir had that can't be so dismissively blamed on the Progress collision. Russia's Mir was far from much of a useful safe space station, and the one big mistake that we should learn from it is not to try and prop up an ailing space station.

The computer problem was caused by the power spike when Progress M-24 collided with solar panels. Gyros were hindered due to the computer. They had a long list of problems caused by the collision. It isn't dismissive, it's a fact.

It was the Russians who left their RCS thrusters enabled during a spacewalk, the Russians' oxygen generator (which wastefully throws the H2 overboard, unrecycled) that keeps breaking, the big 400lbs Russian batteries that keep failing, and so on. So if your final exasperated question is that do I blame Russia at least in part of the ISS's condition, the answer is yes.

Throwing H2 overboard is wasteful, yes, but at least they have a recycling LSS. I've said before that it only recycles half the oxygen astronauts breathe, but that's better than none. NASA kept trying to achieve better than 95% recycling close of all oxygen and water, but Russia just built something that works. Russian water recycling only processes dehumidifier condensate and urine, they make no attempt to recycle wash water or feces. Again, not 95% efficient but it works. While NASA was puttering away at a completely closed LSS, Russia flew multiple space stations.

As for storing H2 for RCS thrusters, it would either require a massive tank for small quantities of gas, or an active cryogenic chiller to liquefy it. LH2 doesn't stay liquid in LEO, it's too warm. Neither Russia nor America have developed a flight ready on-orbit cryogenic chiller.

Russia left RCS thrusters on during a spacewalk? Haven't heard that. Do Russians consider suit contamination by RSC thruster exhaust a hazard at all? I know NASA does, but does the Russian Space Agency? If they don't, that would explain why they didn't bother to turn them off.

GCNRevenger · 2005-02-13 13:05:53

I don't buy it, a recycling LSS system isn't some mystical magic monolith that only the brillian Russians could somehow devine its secrets. Really, your "Russians good, NASA bad" rhetorict is really tiresome, your obvious bias is clearly illustrated in your denial of Russian problems and insistance on their supposed technological parity.

The "falling out of the sky" bit of course was hyperbole, I know full well that the ISS won't immediatly come down if it lost pressure, but it could very well break up if there were structural failure. Right now, the station is having trouble mantaining controlled attitude and the coordination between the two systems is poor as the Russian system is seperate from the US gyros.

"I have to point out that the Russian segments were assembled first"

Which has exactly zero to do with the situation, and is probobly the best example of your bias in this post. That is just naieve, "oh its not our fault since we were here first," please.

The Russians back in the day were less advanced then you think. The computers on the CSM and LM, the LM itself being far beyond anything Russia could come up with (particularly the autopilot), and the Saturn rocket was a whole generation beyond the silly N-1 or Proton... and so on.

"They had a long list of problems caused by the collision. It isn't dismissive, it's a fact."

And I suppose the oxygen generator fire was the collisions' fault too? And the jammed airlock hatch? And the cooland leak in the cabin? The biological contamination? Etcetera etcetera... even the Russians thought that it was Mir's time to go. It really was a wonder that nobody died.

I don't mean to store the Hydrogen for RCS or OMS fuel, but to rather recombine it with pyrolyzed waste CO2 to make water for the crew, one of the biggest upmass requirements.

"Russia left RCS thrusters on during a spacewalk? Haven't heard that."

Yes they did, which potentially endangerd the lives of the spacewalking astronauts. Since things dumped from the station tend to hang around for a little while, if UDMH stuck to their suits, they would have been killed when the openend their helmets in the airlock. Way to go Russia.

And to end with this...: "Simply criticizing the station because you don't like the idea of a station at all. Come on, presidents Bush Sr. and Clinton decided to proceed with it, and George W. had decided to continue to core complete. The money will be spent anyway... (its) a done deal. Instead, let's make the best use of the investment. Do the on-orbit science that scientists want, and demonstrate a high reliability LSS."

Thats correct, I don't like the idea of a space station. However, I also hate this particular space station since it is so poor of a platform, exceeding cost estimates by multiple times, too much vibration, no way to get experiements up or down, in the wrong orbit, and fast becomming a Mir-style death trap. Bush-I and Clinton were stupid for sticking with the idea, and if Bush-II should tell ESA/RSA to take a long walk out of a short airlock, I bet he would.

The reality is that even the International Space Station's remaining assembly costs and a few years of operations don't justify the science that could be gleaned from it.

RobertDyck · 2005-02-13 13:59:34

I saw an interview with Dan Golden when he was NASA administrator. He said the reason he brought in the Russians was to get access to the LSS and docking adaptor for large modules. I didn't concoct the idea, Dan Golden said it.

This is still sounding like "America good, Russia bad". That is in complete violation of the international cooperation that ISS is supposed to foster. Face it, America did have a superior heavy lift rocket (Saturn V) and did build the lunar module, but Russia had the R7 rocket and Vostok spacecraft first. America landed men on the moon, Russia developed space stations. The Proton rocket was a wonderful medium lift launch vehicle and was built during the Moon race. America had the Saturn I, later the Titan IV and now Atlas V and Delta IV. Give credit where credit's due.

Why don't they use a Sabatier reactor to combine CO2 and H2 into methane and water? Because they didn't think of it. Robert Zubrin was the one who introduced the idea of a Sabatier reactor. He wanted to use it for ISPP on Mars, others realized it could be used for life support. By the way, Robert Zubrin didn't originate the idea of ISPP, before him NASA proposed converting Mars CO2 into CO and O2. The problem was a CO/O2 fuel mixture isn't very rich; methane/LOX is much better. We all have 20/20 hindsight.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#126 2005-02-01 21:28:32

Re: More ISS hardball - How does this affect US vision?

#127 2005-02-01 21:54:38

Re: More ISS hardball - How does this affect US vision?

#128 2005-02-02 07:01:10

Re: More ISS hardball - How does this affect US vision?

#129 2005-02-02 21:34:00

Re: More ISS hardball - How does this affect US vision?

#130 2005-02-03 08:36:53

Re: More ISS hardball - How does this affect US vision?

#131 2005-02-03 10:18:23

Re: More ISS hardball - How does this affect US vision?

#132 2005-02-03 12:27:56

Re: More ISS hardball - How does this affect US vision?

#133 2005-02-04 14:31:08

Re: More ISS hardball - How does this affect US vision?

#134 2005-02-07 12:45:49

Re: More ISS hardball - How does this affect US vision?

#135 2005-02-11 07:09:01

Re: More ISS hardball - How does this affect US vision?

#136 2005-02-11 11:51:12

Re: More ISS hardball - How does this affect US vision?

#137 2005-02-11 12:10:14

Re: More ISS hardball - How does this affect US vision?

#138 2005-02-11 12:21:32

Re: More ISS hardball - How does this affect US vision?

#139 2005-02-11 13:03:07

Re: More ISS hardball - How does this affect US vision?

#140 2005-02-11 13:08:24

Re: More ISS hardball - How does this affect US vision?

#141 2005-02-11 13:16:15

Re: More ISS hardball - How does this affect US vision?

#142 2005-02-11 16:38:30

Re: More ISS hardball - How does this affect US vision?

#143 2005-02-11 19:36:01

Re: More ISS hardball - How does this affect US vision?

#144 2005-02-12 14:48:54

Re: More ISS hardball - How does this affect US vision?

#145 2005-02-12 15:10:06

Re: More ISS hardball - How does this affect US vision?

#146 2005-02-12 23:30:41

Re: More ISS hardball - How does this affect US vision?

#147 2005-02-13 00:30:19

Re: More ISS hardball - How does this affect US vision?

#148 2005-02-13 07:21:06

Re: More ISS hardball - How does this affect US vision?

#149 2005-02-13 13:05:53

Re: More ISS hardball - How does this affect US vision?

#150 2005-02-13 13:59:34

Re: More ISS hardball - How does this affect US vision?

Board footer